GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5 9b
Compare GPT-6 Luna and Qwen3.5 9b side-by-side.
Compare GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5 9b live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5 9b on Vision Evals
GPT-6 Luna scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where GPT-6 Luna leads 65.8% to 51.8%.
Overall, GPT-6 Luna averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 64.3% (#44 of 57) for Qwen3.5 9b.
GPT-6 Luna is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0017 per sample) and faster (11.3s vs 33.6s per sample).
GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5 9b Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026
| Property | GPT-6 Luna | Qwen3.5 9b |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 262K |
| Parameters | 9B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $0.150 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 68.6% | 64.3% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0004 | $0.0017 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.27s | 33.65s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.8% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.8 to 58.5 | 46.6% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.8 to 47.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 64.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 64.5 | – |
| Counting (low) | 65.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.6 | 51.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0 |
| Counting (high) | 64.4% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 66.2 | – |
| Identification (low) | 81.3% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 81.3 | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | – |
| OCR (low) | 87.9% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.2 to 88.3 | 77.5% ±7.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.4 to 83.0 |
| OCR (high) | 88.5% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 89.2 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 68.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.0 to 71.1 | 78.7% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 80.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 66.7% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.0 to 67.0 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 52.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.7 to 53.6 | 47.7% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 50.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 60.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.9 to 62.3 | – |
GPT-6 Luna vs Qwen3.5 9b: Overview
GPT-6 Luna is the fast, cost-efficient tier of OpenAI's GPT-6 model family, sitting below GPT-6 Sol and the larger GPT-6 Astra model that opened the generation. It is a proprietary multimodal transformer that accepts text and image input and returns text, and it exposes an adjustable reasoning effort setting so the same model can run in a low-latency mode or spend additional inference compute on harder problems. OpenAI positions it for high-volume and latency-sensitive workloads such as conversational assistants, classification, and lightweight agentic pipelines, while noting that at higher reasoning effort it handles software engineering and computer-use tasks that previously required a Sol-tier model.
The model supports a context window of roughly 1,050,000 input tokens with a maximum output of 128,000 tokens, which allows long documents, extended agent traces, and large code repositories to be processed in a single request. OpenAI describes the GPT-6 generation as improving factual reliability and adopting a more concise communication style relative to the GPT-5.6 series, and attributes the efficiency of the Sol and Luna tiers to gains in caching and inference rather than to reduced capability. Architecture details, parameter counts, and training data are not published.
Qwen3.5-9B is a 9-billion-parameter multimodal foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Qwen team, released on March 2, 2026 as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. Designed for efficient multimodal reasoning and long-context language tasks, it notably outperforms the older Qwen3-30B, a model more than three times its size, on key benchmarks including GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and LongBench.
The model supports vision-language inputs through an early-fusion multimodal architecture built on a dense hybrid foundation of Gated Delta Networks and Gated Attention. It can also operate in a text-only mode by skipping the vision encoder during inference. It provides a 262,144-token context window (extensible to ~1M tokens via YaRN) and is released under the Apache License 2.0. Within the current AI landscape, Qwen3.5-9B offers a strong balance of capability and efficiency, making it well-suited for multimodal assistants, document analysis, long-context reasoning, and developer-deployed agentic systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6 Luna performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.6% (#32 of 57) against 64.3% (#44 of 57) for Qwen3.5 9b. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, GPT-6 Luna leads with 65.8% against 51.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0017. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6 Luna is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.3s per inference against 33.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.